The political economy of transnational action among international NGOs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central premise of this volume is that a collective action approach based on a firm analogy can help both scholars and practitioners understand how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) interact with their organizational environment and make strategic choices. In doing so, the book seeks to challenge the dominant view (or perhaps complement it, as Risse [this volume] suggests) that NGOs are primarily driven by their common moral purpose and commitment to norms (Wapner, 1995; Finnemore, 1996; Keck and Sikkink, 1998; Boli and Thomas, 1999; Clark, 2001). While not denying that normative considerations play an important role in influencing NGO tactics and strategy, this volume seeks to reveal how structural forces and organizational pressures also guide the choices of international NGOs (INGOs), making their behavior akin to that of firms in the marketplace. In other words, instead of normative considerations dominating their decisions about advocacy strategy and tactics, the collective action approach suggests that instrumental concerns such as the desire to please multiple donors who control the budget strings play an important role in explaining INGO behavior. As a result, the normative gloss recedes in importance and INGOs can no longer be clearly distinguished from their instrumental counterparts that function in the economic marketplace
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".